Gary Francione discusses and explores various aspects of the idea that we ought to abolish, and not merely regulate, animal exploitation. The Commentary will promote ethical veganism and creative, non-violent vegan education as the primary forms of activism to move toward the abolition of animal use.

Commentary #18: A Step Backward, the Importance of Veganism, and the Misuse of “Abolition”

3 Sep 2010 at 9:16pm

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I discuss several topics:

First, I talk about the announcement by the new welfarist Mercy for Animals that the retail giant Costco has taken a “step forward” by agreeing to market “humane” veal. I maintain that having animal advocates praise this as a “step forward” and characterizing the issue of eating veal (as opposed to all animal products) as an important issue is a step backward.

Second, I address the argument made by certain large organizations that because we cannot avoid animal products altogether, any baseline moral principle that we should adhere to veganism is just artificial “personal purity.”

Finally, I talk about the misuse of “abolition” by those who advocate welfare reform and violence.

I also discuss briefly the abolitionist workshop that we held at Rutgers in late May and my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which is being published by Columbia University Press.

The post Commentary #18: A Step Backward, the Importance of Veganism, and the Misuse of “Abolition” appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach.

Related posts:

Commentary #1: Vegetarianism as a “Gateway” to Veganism?
Commentary #4: Follow-Up to “Pets” Commentary: Non-Vegan Cats
Commentary #22: A Discussion on Abolition vs. Regulation with Robert Garner
Commentary #19: Talking With Non-Vegans About Veganism: Five Principles
Commentary #6: Aspects of the Vegetarian/Vegan Debate

Dear Colleagues:

In this Commentary, I discuss several topics:

First, I talk about the announcement by the new welfarist Mercy for Animals that the retail giant Costco has taken a “step forward” by agreeing to market “humane” veal. I maintain that having animal advocates praise this as a “step forward” and characterizing the issue of eating veal (as opposed to all animal products) as an important issue is a step backward.

Second, I address the argument made by certain large organizations that because we cannot avoid animal products altogether, any baseline moral principle that we should adhere to veganism is just artificial “personal purity.”

Finally, I talk about the misuse of “abolition” by those who advocate welfare reform and violence.

I also discuss briefly the abolitionist workshop that we held at Rutgers in late May and my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which is being published by Columbia University Press.